Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is significantly reshaping work settings, influencing the context, conditions, and content of various professional roles. It becomes crucial to assess AI’s effect on academic work. This study explores AI’s application within teaching and research tasks in academia. Specifically, it pursues two Objectives (1) to identify and describe both current and prospective AI systems in higher education, and (2) to characterize the opportunities and risks of integrating AI into academic environments. Interviews were conducted with 28 participants from Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United States. The questions addressed AI’s influence on Ethical Principles and Decent Work Dimensions. Results were analyzed considering the Socio-Technical Systems Approach. Interviews were coded, analyzed for sentiment, and clustered into seven participant profiles based on coding similarities: “Optimists,” “Moderates,” “Dreamers,” “Cautious Skeptics,” “Expansionists,” “Knowledgeable,” and “Strategists.” Findings emphasize the importance of aligning technology and human needs to achieve successful AI integration. They also point to the value of well-defined guidelines, fair funding, and continuous professional development. By illustrating the spectrum of attitudes and readiness levels among academic stakeholders, this study offers key insights for policymakers, administrators, and educators seeking to embrace AI while preserving Ethical Principles and Decent Work standards.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Pais, Leonor 1
; Zijlstra, Fred R. H. 2
; Oswald, Frederick L. 3
; Santos, Nuno Rebelo dos 4
1 University of Coimbra, Center for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive and Behavioral Intervention (CINEICC), Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Coimbra, Portugal (GRID:grid.8051.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9511 4342)
2 Maastricht University, Department of Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5012.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0481 6099)
3 Rice University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.21940.3e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8278)
4 Universidade de Évora, Research Centre in Education and Psychology (CIEP-UÉ), School of Social Sciences, Évora, Portugal (GRID:grid.8389.a) (ISNI:0000 0000 9310 6111)




